Perceptions of cycling in cyclists

and non-cyclists alike in Dublin

Tom Seaver
Student no.: 14204109
Masters in Environmental Sustainability
UCD School of Biology and Environmental Science
Supervisor: Dr. Aoife Ahern
Submission Date: 5th October 2015

Table of Contents
1. Abstract....................................3
2. Introduction..............................4
3. Benefits of Cycling
3.1 Environmental.................6
3.2 Social.............................9
3.3 Economic........................13
4. Disadvantages of Cycling..........19
5. Barriers to Cycling
5.1Infrastructure and Distance...22
5.2Bicycle Access......................25
5.3Safety...................................26
5.4Darkness and Weather.........31
5.5 Government follow through..32
6. Methodology..................................33
7. Results...........................................35
8. Discussion......................................41
9. References.....................................44
10. Acknowledgements.......................51
11. Appendix........................................51

List of Abbreviations
CBD= Central Business District
CSO= Central Statistics Office
CVD= Cardiovascular Disease
ECF= European Cycling Federation
EU= European Union
GDA= Greater Dublin Area
GHG= Greenhouse Gas
HEAT= Health Economic Assessment Tool
IPA= Irish Parking Association
IPCC= International Panel on Climate Change
IT= Institute of Technology
LCA= Life Cycle Assessment
NCPF= National Cycling Policy Framework
NEAT= Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis
NTA= National Transport Authority
PCA= Principal Component Analysis
UCD= University College Dublin
UN= United Nations
WHO= World Health Organisation

1. Abstract
Irelands National Cycling Policy Framework 2009-2020 outlines governmental
plans to increase cyclings modal share in terms of transport in Ireland. Ireland has
lagged behind other EU countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, among
others in this respect for some decades. Increasing the modal share of cycling
makes sense in a city in terms of greener, more sustainable cities. The advantages
are economic, environmental and social, as outlined in the literature review of this
thesis. Furthermore, the benefits of cycling friendly cities outweigh the risks, while
personal automobiles like cars can be overvalued in terms of their contribution.
Cyclists and non-cyclists in Dublin have different perceptions on the barriers to
cycling. In order to best increase cyclings modal share in Dublin, it is worthwhile to
ascertain what these perceptions of cycling in Dublin are. This will help to explain
why some of cyclings latent potential in Dublin is not realised. This exploratory study
examines this in office workers in 9 large companies based in Dublins Central
Business District, the study area, by way of survey.
While the methodology limited the options for analysis, the data gathered still points
towards answers. Unsurprisingly, gender appears to be an issue in cycling, as the
perception of a lack of safety means fewer women than men cycle in Dublin, while
the number of children cycling to school in Ireland (and are now being driven
instead) has decreased hugely in the previous decades. This means that there are
equity concerns in terms of cycling, and the need to make it both safer in order to
make it perceived as safer in Dublin City. While there are less female cyclists, it is
hinted that they wear helmets at a lower rate and are more likely to allow adverse
weather to prevent them cycling. The results appear to point to differences in
perceptions of cycling between the cyclists and non-cyclists who responded. Cyclists
primarily perceive about and the lack of cycling infrastructure, as a barrier to cycling,
more so than non-cyclists. It would seem that this could warrant a larger future study
to find significant perceived barriers to cycling so that they may be addressed, and
the governmental goal of 10% of all trips in Ireland by bicycle by 2020 can then more
likely be reached.

2. Introduction
The main aim of this thesis is to examine barriers to cycling and the potential role
which enhanced rates of cycling can play in creating a more sustainable world.
Cycling is far from a panacea to challenges in sustainability. This literature review
will assert it as a small, but worthwhile, component of more sustainable human
world. There are several challenges currently in meeting the need to prevent or
curtail anthropogenic climate change (IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change)
2014), dealing with the depletion of the fossil fuels which humankind has relied upon
heavily (Hk and Tang 2013) and using our resources more sustainably so as to
preserve resources and ecosystem services for future generations and the estimated
global population of 9 Billion people by 2050 (UN (United Nations) 2014).
The definition of sustainability which will be used for the purposes of this thesis is the
three pillars definition. This includes environmental, economic and social
sustainability. The social aspect is the ability of a society to bring good social
wellbeing and equality to all people. In the words of the former mayor of Bagota,
Enrique Pealosa (2010), A bicycle path is a social statement that a person with a
$40 bicycle is as important as anyone with a $40,000 car. The economic component
is about ensuring efficient and responsible resource use and critically, the
environmental pillar of maintaining the integrity of the biosphere. These aspects are
interacting, as per figure 1 (Circular Ecology 2015).

Fig. 1: the 3 pillars of sustainability and their

interactions. (Circular Ecology 2015)

Why cycling? This literature review will display evidence from existing research that
cycling, or increased rates of cycling can contribute greatly as a component of a
sustainable world. Its positive qualities fit into all sets and subsets of the Venn
diagram in figure 1.
This study uses the Central Business District (CBD) in Dublin as the study area. UN
reports state that populations are migrating from rural and countryside settings to
cities, and are continuing to do so, and therefore human activities will begin to be
concentrated in cities more so (as of 2014, 54% of humans lived in cities, compared
with approximately 30% in 1950. It is projected that by 2050, the figure will have
reached 66%) (UN 20141). This factor, in combination with increased global
populations for this period will mean more cities and a general size increase in
already existing ones. Therefore, it is worthwhile to focus attention on the possible
ways of making our cities more sustainable. Figure 2, below, summarises the
aspects of cycling which lends itself to the chosen definition of sustainability.

Fig.

2:

The

sustainable features of increasing cyclings modal share.

Within figure 2, positive points of significantly increased levels of cycling are briefly
illustrated. It does not include the drawbacks, which will also be dealt with. It will also
be displayed that any potential drawbacks are far outweighed by the positives.

Figure 2 is a simplification of the clearer picture of what is known about cycling in

cities. These subtleties will also be dealt with.

3. Benefits of cycling
3.1 Environmental:
There are undoubtedly environmental arguments to be made for increasing cyclings
modal share. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) cites the ability to
use alternative transportation modes including mass transit, bicycling, or walking as
a factor in affecting the level of greenhouse gases (GHGs) a region emits (IPCC
20141). When one considers that 14% of anthropogenic GHGs are currently caused
by transport, it is a good idea to incorporate transport into any decarbonisation
strategies. Creutzig (2012), in a study on decarbonising urban transport takes 4
European cities, Mlmo, Freiburg, Sofia and Barcelona as case studies and
conclude that not only are there environmental benefits to this, but other social and
economic ones. Indeed, the European Unions Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which
are binding GHG emission targets for EU Member States (MS), targets the transport
sector with 34% of its GHG emission reduction goals (European Cycling Federation
2015). This is partly because ESDs only cover non-ETS sectors (European
Commission 2015). This is the most obvious ecological advantage of bicycling.
Using statistics from 2003, the European Cycling Federation (ECF) stated that the
EU could reach 26% of its aimed CO2 reduction goal for 2050 (60% reduction
compared to 1990) if the rest of the EU cycles the same amount as Danish citizens.
For every 2.6km cycled by Danish citizens, the rest of the EU cycles 0.5km (ECF
2011). The ECF published a study in 2011, quantified the potential emission savings
of increased cycling rates in the EU. The key findings were as follows:

When compared to personal cars, bicycle transport saved more than 10 times
the GHGs, even with additional factors such as extra caloric intake needed for
cycling commutes were taken into consideration.

E-bikes (Electric bikes) have an emission range equal to that of normal

bicycles. This is due to their ability to allow for 56% longer commutes.

In addition to the facts stated in the statistic from the paragraph above (ECF
2011), EU crude oil imports would decrease by nearly 10%.

Furthermore, the EUs GHG goals will not be met with technology, but will
rather be more likely achieved through a large modal-shift away from cars.

Bike share schemes, a way of increasing accessibility to and convenience of

cycling, is a potential substitute for 50-75% of motorised transport users.

(ECF 20111)
Something to consider about the above study study are that the factors of disposal of
bicycles after use and the effects of bicycle infrastructure were not taken into
consideration due to a lack of available information on these factors. Furthermore,
although it was a 2011 study, some of the statistics used to justify points may have
since changed. However, although some of the data may be a little different today,
the answer has not moved. Referring to point (a), below, cars have not become 10
times more efficient in the last 4 years.
In relation to point (b), there are many life-cycle analyses (LCAs) performed on the
sustainability and footprint of e-bikes. Liu et al (2015) found that lead-acid batteries,
which are the main battery-type, used in the increasingly popular e-bike in China,
has the potential to cause ozone depletion, eutrophication, and photochemical smog
and is also a source of carcinogenicity. The authors state that the majority of the
environmental impacts of lead-acid batteries can be taken care of with proper
recycling and treatment. Unfortunately, in Chinas case though: ... currently, 95% of
total lead emissions are released in the end-of-life stage due to improper
management of the spent LABs recycling market in China, and these emissions
causes 90% of total human toxicity potential. This emphasises that not one solution
will make our cities truly sustainable and environmentally friendly, and that full LCAs
must be taken into consideration. E-bikes have some other environmental factors to
consider such as electricity source (i.e. fossil fuel or renewable?) and the battery
type (ESU services 2010). All else being equal e-bikes would carry less overall
benefits from a health point of view also.
Point (c) can be thought of as a small way of diversifying fuel sources. Automobile
journeys replaced by cycling will instead be run on human energy (fat), rather than
fossil fuels. The diversification of power source is currently an energy policy strategy
7

of the EU (European Commission 2014). The justification for point (d) (that we in the
EU cannot rely on technology to solve this problem), comes in two parts. The first
part is that with increased efficiency comes the inherent risk of the rebound effect.
This effect is essentially a positive feedback loop whereby increased efficiency will
lead to greater consumption of endpoint energy. Secondly, there does not appear to
be any technological advancement on the horizon which will help the EU reach its
GHG reduction goals. Rather, the ECF argues that we must focus on a
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions across the board (ECF 20111). This is
where increasing the modal share of cycling can fit into an overall plan.
Other environmental benefits include no direct pollutants, negligible noise pollution,
and lower levels of traffic congestion due to less space being required (Heinen
2011). In terms of the latter benefit, this is due to the fact that for cycling requires
less physical space per commuter than cars. In 2011 in Ireland, 69% of commuters
drove to work (CSO 2011). Automobiles require large amounts of physical space due
to their physical size and need for braking distance. Cycling also has lower speed
(therefore requiring less braking distance). These benefits are true for walking also.
Understandably, these environmental benefits are more difficult to measure than
lower levels than pollutant and GHG being emitted (US Dep. Transportation 2000).
On top of a high proportion of car drivers, most of them appear to be individuals
driving with no passengers. This can be inferred as the CSO (2013) reported that
only 6.1% of those who commuted by car were passengers in 2012 and 5.8% in
2013. McCann (2015), studying IT (Institute of Technology) Sligo finds that 60-80%
of students and staff came by private automobile, whereas only 15-22% of these
journeys had any passengers (there was variance in answers among the survey
conducted and the live interviews also performed). Perhaps the rate of car sharing is
higher here as students are less likely to have private automobiles for economic
reasons. This adds to the comparative inefficiency of automobiles. In fact, Tranter
(2012) argues that cars are a totally inefficient mode of transport. His justification is
as follows: cars convert about 20% of the fuel energy they use into movement.
Furthermore, drivers tend to weigh about 5% of their cars weight, so Tranter
concludes that, by this metric, cars have about 1% efficiency when only a driver is
present in the car while driving (which appears to be most of the time in Ireland).

Lynch and Foley (2011), write a combination of factors such as long commuting
distances to work, large scale urban sprawl and increased decentralisation of city
populations due to various government policies since the 1970s has encouraged a
damaging and unsustainable form of land use across urban centres of the United
States. In Ireland similar trends of excessive daily driving can be observed in the
environs of the larger towns and cities - in the hubs and gateways. Similarly,
Caulfield and Ahern (2013), point to the well documented association between urban
sprawl, increased travel time which is made an unsustainable commute patterns due
to large reliance on personal automobiles.
This literature review in no way argues that walking and cycling ought to replace all
forms of commute. However, it can certainly be a holistic replacement for a
significant share of the unsustainable commute patterns.

3.2 Social:
Broadly speaking, the social benefits of significantly increasing the modal share of
cycling include: increased levels of social interactions, an enhanced positive feeling
about the built environment and the physical health ramifications such as positive
effects on cardiovascular health and contributing to lower levels of obesity. In direct
comparison, a car-centric urban area can, in the literature summary of Garrard et al
(2012) on the subject, ... (Come) at a cost to other road users and local residents in
terms of community disruption, noise pollution, social isolation, urban sprawl and
restrictions to childrens independent mobility. The social side of the health benefits
of cycling will be dealt with in this sub-section and their corresponding economic
benefits in the next.
Oftentimes, societal benefits can be less quantifiable. However, they are
nonetheless tangible. What appears to be the case, is that infrastructure which
encourages cycling and walking whilst discouraging cars enhances the social
interactions of within a community, whereas the enabling a high volume of high
speed traffic detracts from these benefits. In the case of Litmann and Doherty
(2009), human urban environments which are more so amenable to active transport
adds to the areas rating of liveability, level of social interaction and amenability of the
9

area. Furthermore, there are many costs of automobiles which are not considered,
such as land use.
With the reduction in air and noise pollution of those areas which discourage
automobiles whilst encouraging active transport comes independent mobility and
further increased physical activity from the opportunity to play outdoors. This finding
has been replicated in many times and different in settings, similarly, higher levels of
traffic are associated with lower levels of interactions between neighbours and social
street-based activities (Garrard et al 2012). Interestingly, Litmann (2014) has
compiled a report which discusses strategies and techniques of incorporating
concept of community cohesion, which refers to the quantity and quality of
interactions among people in a community, as indicated by the degree to which
residents know and care about their neighbours. This paper discusses how
transport plans can affect communities in several negative ways, hence placing
importance on the concept of community cohesion is for the advantage of
communities.
In terms of the physiological health benefits of cycling, the potential health benefits at
population level are huge. The WHO (World Health Association) (2015) state this in
the report Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation - Transport sector. Oja et
al (2011) provide an overview of the literature of cyclings health benefits.
Overwhelmingly,

cross-sectional

and

longitudinal

studies

display

positive

relationships between cycling and health. Furthermore strong inverse relationships

between commuter cycling and all cause mortality in the middle age to elderly
subjects. Oja et al (2011) ranked most of the studies they reviewed as moderate to
high quality. A more recent systematic review of literature relating to the health
effects of cycling is Mueller et al (2015). This review of 30 studies found substantial
net benefits, despite the various differing applications of Help Impact Assessment
methods. Furthermore, these net benefits outweighed the negatives of air pollution
exposure. Air pollution and cycling will be dealt with in the section disadvantages of
cycling.
One long term study (following the ~23,000 participants for an average of 9.8 years)
attempted to find more specifically if there is any difference between exercise type
participated in and prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Hoevenaar-Blom
10

(2011) finds that there is a significant dose-response effect causing an inverse

relationship between exercise (certain types, and not others) CVD. In particular, this
study found that sports on its own significantly decreases chances of CVD (p<0.001),
but not cycling on its own (p=0.06). However, engaging in both cycling and sports
resulted in an even greater risk reduction. The study compared sports and cycling
with those who just walked an gardened for exercise. Walking and gardening on the
other hand had no significant reductive effect on CVD. This points to a (seemingly
intuitive) conclusion that cycling on its own will not be a panacea for health, but
rather is a handy tool which is part of an overall healthy lifestyle.
Studies link increased cycling to lower incidence of obesity and a less overweight
population. Suminski et al (2014) conclude that level of bicycling infrastructure is
positively related to the number of workers who cycle to work. Furthermore, the
amount of people cycling to work was inversely associated to the levels of
overweight and obese adults (p<0.05). This particular paper had taken the 48 largest
cities in the USA, so had a large sample size. However, perhaps the use of BMI as
the indicator for obesity is not the most ideal. On the other hand, a Canadian study
associated bicycle ownership with higher levels of physical activity in transportation
but found no association between bicycle ownership and waist circumference of BMI
(n= 2109). The study concluded that the improvement of access to cycling would
increase physical activity of a population, but not decrease problems associated with
being overweight. Perhaps in developed countries, many people own bicycles but
that does not equate to them cycling in their daily lives. Taking both of these studies
into consideration perhaps bicycle ownership/access is a prerequisite to cycling, but
cycling infrastructure is more important in terms of bringing about the health benefits
of cycling.
Positive outcomes from cycling are not just associated with adults. Dudas and
Crocetti (2008) analysed of a group of 100 children, 56% of whom were overweight.
What was found was, riding a bicycle at least 2 or more days during the week is
associated with a decreased likelihood of being overweight during childhood. Ideally
a larger sample than 100 individuals would make for a better study. However, what
made the group interesting was that half of the subjects did not walk or ride a bike to
school or participate in organised sporting activities. Across age groups, there is
huge potential for cycling to form a very large portion of populations exercise. In the
11

Netherlands, cycling contributes the most to the nations moderate to heavy exercise
(Garrard et al 2012). Increased utilitarian cycling would certainly increase what
Levine (2002) calls NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis). This can be
understood as our bodies caloric expenditure from activities which are not-sport
related, eating or sleeping. Cycling can bring about a high amount of NEAT.
A larger study on the health benefits of cycling comes from Andersen et al (2011),
who like Dudas and Crocetti (2008), use schoolchildren as subjects (n= 334).
Anderson et als results found that A consistent pattern of better CVD risk factor
profile in commuter cyclists compared with children using other means of transport
was found. Participants, who did not cycle to school at baseline, and who had
changed to cycling at follow up, were fitter, had better cholesterol/HDL ratio, better
glucose metabolism, and a lower composite CVD risk factor score than those who
did not cycle at either time point. Cycling to school may contribute to a better
cardiovascular risk factor profile in young people".
The WHO study titled Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation - Transport
sector, is a Health impact assessment (HIA) which explores the benefits of active
transport. Active transport is cited as a tool to aid climate change mitigation. Cycling
falls under this category, but the study is about walking also. It notes the potential
decrease in respiratory/cardiovascular disease from air pollution, less traffic injury
and noise stress, and also, ...large benefits are expected from increased physical
activity, which can prevent some cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other
obesity-related risks... Improved mobility for women, children, the elderly, and low
income groups enhances health equity. Furthermore, Urban air pollution (much
from transport) and traffic injuries kill some 2.6 million people annually, mostly in lowand middle-income countries. Active transport can help prevent many of the 3.2
million deaths from physical inactivity. The HIA draws the links between the
environmental benefits of active transport and the health benefits.
Garrard et al (2012) also discusses to the psychosocialhealth benefits of active
transport. These include mental health and social health benefits, as well as a
means of reducing the reducing health inequalities. Active commutes can provide the
necessary exercise for treating anxious and depressive symptoms. It should be
pointed out that many of the studies which are concerned with active commute and
12

mental health, or indeed health in general, are not specifically talking about cycling. It
is however well established that regular physical exercise is associated with
increased cognitive function (in terms of memory and how mental tasks are
performed) in children and adults as well as decreases likelihood of dementia in
older populations. The literature on mental health assets of cycling on balance
appears to say that active commuting by cycling helps remove stress from
commuting. There is also research which suggests that this is merely context
dependent however. The converse of utilitarian cycling as a de-stress tool can be
seen as the barriers or perceptions of barriers to cycling. This will be discussed
further in the section known barriers to cycling. In terms of reducing health
inequalities, active commuting through cycling can help reduce the sociodemographic health inequalities. These exist in most countries. Poorer populations
tend to have much higher mortality levels than the rich. While leisure time physical
activity more so participated in by the economically advantaged, this is not the case
for utilitarian cycling.
Much of this probably will not be considered surprising by most, given that increased
levels of exercise for most is universally accepted as a positive thing. As illustrated,
the benefits are multiple and the contribution (as well as latent possible contribution)
of cycling are huge. As an added advantage to this as a form of exercise, cycling is
much easier on joints than other forms of exercise as the activity is relatively nonweight bearing (Nichols et al 2003). Increasing utilitarian cycling has further potential
importance in Ireland as our obesity or overweight levels are above the EU average
(66% in men above 20 and 50.9% in women above 20, compared to western
European average of 47.6%) (RT 2014). A WHO study predicts the problem in
Ireland is set to get worse before it gets better (Irish Times 2015).
Another element of cyclings social accessibility is the many iterations of bicycles.
They can be shaped in many ways, for example putting child carriers on them to help
with school runs (Lovejoy and Handy 2012)

3.3 Economic Benefits:

13

If cycling is to fit this papers definition of sustainability, it ought to have economically

advantageous components. This sub-section will explore the known information on
this and try to assess the validity of it. Similarly, the aforementioned advantages they
are co-benefits, whereby one advantage infers another by necessity.
Upon review of 16 papers for the economic consequences of active transport
infrastructure, Cavill (2008) founds only 3 to be high quality, 6 moderate and 7 of low
quality. Shedding some light on this, Rutter et al (2013) writes, Economic evaluation
is an important factor in the decision to fund any new transport scheme, but
techniques for assessing the economic value of the health benefits of cycling and
walking have tended to be less sophisticated than the approaches used for
assessing other benefits. Cavill (2008) call for a more standardised approach for
examining these relationships. Rutter et al (2013) make an attempt at his by creating
a tool for calculating the averted costs of deaths and illnesses avoided from active
transport. Should there be a dearth of local data, default conservative values based
on previous studies can be used. This tool is used by Swedish and British
departments of transport.
Following on from the above mentioned health benefits of cycling, these confer
economic savings also. A recent study by Fishman et al (2015) used the Health
Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) developed by the World Health Organization to
estimate the mortality rate reduction and number of deaths prevented each year by
cycling in the Netherlands. The study finds that ...of the mortality reduction of all age
groups together, about 6500 deaths per year were prevented as a result of cycling in
the Netherlands. With a value of a statistical life of euro 2.8 million per prevented
death, the total economic health benefits of cycling were estimated at euro19 billion
per year.
In Ireland, Deenihan and Caulfield (2014) applied the above mentioned HEAT to a
proposed long cycle track from Dublin to Mullingar along a canal. The findings were
that it can be inferred that over a 10 year period with a two year uptake of cycling
and five years for the build up of the health benefits, that the benefits accumulated
over 10 years would be between 26,695,000 and 141,222,000, (depending on the
levels of cycling uptake) on the modal switch. These calculations are based on a
local population uptake between 1.72% and 10%. These benefits would result from
14

an initial investment of 12,000,000. This, it is reasoned, would lead to benefitcost

ratios of between 2.22:1 and 11.77:1, dependent on the mode switch. The study
finds the constructing of the cycleway to be very worthwhile economically speaking.
Deenihan and Caulfield (2015), find further economic benefit in the construction of
cycling infrastructure. Tourists value cycling infrastructure in cities they visit. Through
surveys, it was found that tourists are willing to increase their levels of cycling by an
average of100% in order to use segregated cycle paths. These values were between
40-50% for a cycle lane (compared to a regular road). The study also found young
males who own one or more bicycles are more likely to choose a road without
specific cycling facilities than older females who do not own a bicycle. The issue of
cycling and gender will be returned to in a subsequent section.
The Great Western Greenway is an example of success and the potential for cycling
infrastructure in Ireland. It is a 42km long, mostly off-road, walking and cycling track
from Westport to Achill Island in Co. Mayo. A Filte Ireland economic impact study
from 2011 estimated that it had 80.000 individual uses; that year. It contributes
greatly to the local economy and to the national economy to a smaller extent (3.8
and 1.3 million euros per year respectively, but this is just a projection). A study from
Trinity College Dublin concludes that a more realistic estimate is a bit more than 1
million euro in total in to the local economy (domestic and non-domestic tourists)
(Deenihan et al (2013). the facility has a payback period of 6 years. Investing in
cycling facilities in areas that cater not just for local usage, but also for tourists can
be very worthwhile to the local economy. It says, the small local population of the
area alone would not warrant an investment of 5.5 million in cycling facilities.
However, the amount of tourists using the Greenway has made the facility a very
worthwhile investment. This ties in with the Deenihan and Caulfield (2015) paper on
tourists valuing bicycling infrastructure.
In the USA, the Michigan Department of Transport (2014) published a report on
findings relating to the potential economic benefits of cycling. Their 668 Million USD
total comes from the following breakdown: household retail spending on bicycling $175 million, manufacturing - $11 million, avoided health care costs $256 million;
reduced absenteeism, $187 million; and event and tourism spending - $38 million.

15

The problem of course with reports done which make projections is that no matter
how conservative or sensible the methodology is, they are still just best guesses.
However, case studies may help to overcome this uncertainty in economic reports
done by companies on behalf of city authorities. Indeed, there are many case studies
displaying the economic worth of bicycle friendliness. It is not unusual for business
owners in many cities to be in opposition to the introduction of bicycle infrastructure.
Their reasoning is invariably that they will lose out on business. This is not a totally
unreasonable thing to assume. It can be intuitively argued that car owners will spend
more than alternative transport users. Cars are more expensive than bicycles and
walking. Furthermore, they have more space to fit more purchases. There is a wealth
of evidence to the contrary that car users spend more overall. For example, for 2 and
half years, debate boiled locally on Polk Street, San Francisco, as to whether to put
in segregated bike lanes or not. Local business owners fought hard against it, and
they eventually won. Upon further analysis, it was found that only 15% of people who
visit businesses the street arrive by car (Blue 2013). In the end, the citys transport
authorities came to a compromise for both sides and the investment of a segregated
bike lane came with concessions (Fitzgerald Rodrigues 2015).
A survey in Portland, Oregon (USA) of 78 businesses found that cyclists and
pedestrians spend the same as, if not more than, automobile drivers (Oregon
Transportation Research and Education Consortium 2012). They write, Bicyclists,
pedestrians, and transit riders are competitive consumers: when demographics and
socioeconomics are controlled for, mode choice does not have a statistically
significant impact on consumer spending at convenience stores, drinking
establishments, and restaurants. When trip frequency is accounted for, the average
monthly expenditures by customer modes of travel reveal that bicyclists, transit
users, and pedestrians are competitive consumers and for all businesses except
supermarkets, spend more, on average than those who drive. While a car owner
may spend more on an individual trip in Oregon, it is important to realise that trip
frequency is an important factor which brings other transport modes up to equal and
even higher economic importance.
The finding that taking into account trip frequency is important is replicated in Dublin
by the NTA (National Transport authority) in 2015. The survey had 1671
respondents. Similarly to the above mentioned survey in Portland, once the money
16

spent by shoppers is adjusted for frequency of trips, car users account for 19.7% of
the city centres retail revenue. This accounts for less than 1 in 5 euros spent.
Comparatively, cyclists account for only 2.7%. However, bus accounts for 36.2%,
walking accounts for 21.4%, Luas accounts for 16.0%, and train for the remaining
4.1%. This survey makes it clear that it is mostly revolved around ascertaining and
understanding the travel habits and spending of visitors to the city centre. 38% of the
respondents were questioned during the weekday, and the remaining 62% on the
weekend. Furthermore, surveys only took place between 10am and 9pm. On top of
this, the locations of the surveying were Henry Street and Grafton Street, Dublins 2
busiest streets for shopping and retail. This appears to be reasonable enough, given
that the survey is titled, Dublin City Centre Shopping Survey. However, upon
examination of where the biggest car parks in Dublins central commercial area are,
one will find that they cluster around Grafton Street and Henry Street. These are the
multi-story car parks on Jervis Street, Drury Street, Dawson Street, Molesworth
Street, and Trinity Street.
A conclusion which can be drawn from the above survey is that just fewer than 1 in 5
visitors to the city centre are car drivers, and therefore public transportation and
active commute ought to be an important part of Dublin cities future plans for
transport infrastructure.
It is important to realise that surveys such as these offer only views on travelling and
spending. There is much more to a city centre than this. There are places of work,
higher learning, recreation, museums, galleries, some open spaces and cultural
events. It is the view of the author that these are important. While surveys such as
these may give important data, it is far from a clear picture of our interactions with
city centres. Comparing studies such as these may not give truthful answers. The
reason for this is that cities across the world are built differently. They have different
population

densities,

different

qualities

of

public

transport,

and

different

infrastructures. Furthermore, the research methodologies can be totally different. It is

worthwhile reiterating here that tourists were excluded from the above survey
To illustrate, another study with the objective of ascertaining the relationship
between visitor travel mode and spending levels in Dublin city centre has been
performed. However, what makes OConnor et al (2011) interesting to compare to
17

NTA (2015) is that it also includes the perceptions of retailers with regards to how
much each modality type contributes to their incomes, while it also picked the same
2 streets to get a sample from. The surveys were also relatively similar in size (1671
vs 1009). While the NTA (2015) study is probably a bit better to use for travel
modality and spending relationships as it is more recent, and also OConnor et al
(2011) did no surveying on weekends, which it admits It is probable...

that a

Saturday count would have a different trip purpose profile, with less people travelling
to the city centre for work and education.
In terms of retailers perceptions, OConnor et al (2011) writes, Traders on Dublins
two main shopping streets considerably over-estimate spending by shoppers
travelling by car and Luas while significantly undervaluing the spend of bus
passengers and pedestrians... Bus carried 35% of shoppers to Grafton St and 49%
to Henry St; this compares with traders perceptions of 31% and 40% respectively.
Measured in value terms, bus proved the most lucrative mode to both streets,
delivering 38% of the total spend on both streets, when outliers are excluded.
Pedestrian travel was similarly under-valued. Traders believed that 11% would walk
to shop on Grafton St while on Henry St traders estimated that 6% of their customers
came on foot. The actual figures are 20% and 19%, according to the survey. Car
transport was overvalued by traders. On Grafton St traders perceived that car would
account for 13% of customers whereas in reality car-borne shoppers made up 10%.
Traders on Henry St believed car would carry 19% of shoppers but in fact only 9%
came by car. Again, the conclusion was drawn that there is a need to really look
after and develop public transport and active commute infrastructure. It is worthwhile
reiterating that this survey had its own limitations. While some of the statistics may
have changed over the last few year, it is possible that the overestimation of car
drivers to their businesses persists. A third study, and most recent study on the
relationship between modality choice and spend of shoppers in Dublins city centre
by the special interest group the IPA (Irish Parking Association). Their findings are
quite the opposite, and they conclude that accessibility for cars and provision of car
parks are in the best interest for the citys economic good (REFERENCE).
Perhaps a more comprehensive study on the subject is one that took place in New
Zealand. This particular one, by the New Zealand Transport Agency (2013) took 9
shopping locations in Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington. The number of
18

respondents was 1744 people and 144 retailers. Interestingly, it was again found that
retailers overestimated the importance of cars. A bigger study area may have also
contributed to the higher resolution view as to what the peoples economic and travel
dynamics with the city was. Active transport becomes more important closer to the
city centre, with similar enough spends in each group (since the adjustment for visit
frequency was performed). This may display the importance and practicality of
population density in population choosing travel mode. The same trend is seen in
Ireland in the aforementioned CSO (2011) and CSO (2013), whereby active travel
commuting is very low in the Dublin hinterlands and generally increases towards the
city centre. But this paper is not arguing that cycling should subsum all commuting
modalities. In the words of Darnton (2009), If just 5% of all our annual journeys were
by bike, it would create a dramatic improvement in rush hour traffic conditions. That
target of 5% is quite remarkable when we remember that over 40% of ail trips (in
Great Britain) by car cover less than three miles.
There are many other studies in a similar vein including Lee (2008) in Melbourne
Australia, and Popovich and Handy (2014) in Davis, California. But it can be sloppy
comparing cities with different sizes, populations, socioeconomic circumstances,
quality of public transport, and climate. Also, the different methodologies in each
study mean that the overall picture they paint should be more of a rough guide. In
all, these arguments are more so valid in terms of tearing down stigma/perceptions
pertaining to cycling necessarily being bad for businesses. The evidence appears to
point to the contrary. It is important to take these findings in context with the other
advantages of increase modal share of cycling, particularly in our cities. While these
studies should be taken with a pinch of salt, the overall picture they create should
also be considered.

4. Disadvantages of cycling
Cycling is not without its pitfalls. These include exposure to air pollution from
motorised traffic from air pollution, potential accidents and bicycle theft. Furthermore,
there are many barriers to cycling which prevents its latent potential for modal share
increase being realised, but this will be dealt with in its own section, as it relates very
much to the title of this thesis.
19

In terms of the exposure of air pollution, the main air pollutants today are oxides of
nitrogen and sulphur (NOx and SOx), particulate matter such as PM10 and PM2.5 and
hydrocarbons such as PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) (WHO 2005). It ought to be
considered that there is much to take into account with air pollutant exposure of
cyclists compared with motorists. For example, in a study that took place in Dublin,
ODonoghue et al (2007) comparing motorised versus cycling commuters finds that
there a lower pollutant concentration of air pollutants for cyclists, especially at the
less bust side of the road. However, this is not the full story. What must be taken into
account is the general need for cyclists to breathe more. Therefore, the above
pattern is reversed when one considers the higher rate of respiration of cyclists.
McNabola et al (2009), another study based on this comparison with the study area
in Dublin performed a PCA (principal component analysis) for this. A PCA is a way of
compressing data in order to simplify it and ascertain patterns. Results found that
for non-motorised transport, wind speed was the most critical factor for air pollution
levels and effects, whereas for motorised commuters traffic is the main variable.
When it comes to the effects of air pollution, meteorological effects are important.
What we see again is the fact that the level of cyclings effects is totally context
dependant. Similar to Hoevenaar-Blom et al (2013) (which was discussed on the
section on social benefits of cycling), who concluded that utilitarian cycling helps
prevent CVD but only in tandem with sport participation. Garrard et al (2012)
discussed that not all demographics enjoy the psychosocial benefits of cycling.
Also, it was seen that the economic contribution of cyclists in a city depended, in
part, on the city and the answer of the study could be moved slightly by the
methodology. This echoes what was said in the introductory section about cycling
not being a panacea, but rather a useful piece in the puzzle of making our cities
more sustainable.
In terms of road safety, cycling can potentially be a lot less safe in some cities than
any other form of transport. Irelands RSA (Road Safety Authority) reported a 59%
increase in injuries on Irish roads in 2012 compared to 2011 (RSA 2014). A total of
630 cyclist casualties (including fatalities which accounted for 8) were recorded that
year (CSO 2012). This will probably remain until infrastructure is less than the
standard seen in countries such as Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. These
countries have quite low rates of cycling accidents (Jacobsen and Rutter 2012).
20

Short and Caulfield (2014) conclude that, in Ireland at least, the evidence here
shows that cycling is less safe than official figures show and that cycling is not
becoming safer as other modes are. It is difficult to study cycling safety as
incidences are (i) under reported (ii) have a discrepancy between different official
databases. For example, Short and Caulfield (2014) find that police and hospital
records of cycling collisions only half match. This, however, may be accounted for by
the fact that not every collision will require calling the police. Cycling is growing in
popularity in Ireland. But without proper reports and records it will be impossible to
tell whether it is getting safer or not. What is known though is that there is a large
asymmetry between the effects on a cyclists and motorists colliding at speed for both
parties involved.
Cycling injuries will also incur economic costs. In the Netherlands in 2012,
emergency department treatments of cyclists cost over 410 million euros, of which
traumatic brain injury alone cost 74.5 million euros (Scholten et al 2015). It must be
remembered and considered that the Netherlands is a society with high cycle rates,
but lower accident rates. It can be difficult to disentangle these 2 factors. The cost of
accidents varies very much by type and severity. One study, Aertsens et al (2010),
set in Belgium, founds an average cost of 841 euros of even minor accidents (ones
which require a 24hour stay in hospital or less). The study found a 148 minor
bicycling accidents occur in Belgium per million km cycled.
There is also the obvious fact that cycling is slower than motorised transport in most
situations. Exceptions include busy city centres and possibly rush hour traffic. But,
referring to ODonoghue et al (2007) and MacNabola et al (2009), these could be the
worst times to cycle in terms of air pollution. While cars may be fast though, Tranter
(2012) points to studies that show that motorists often underestimate the times of
their journeys.
Another problem with cycling is the relative ease of theft of a bicycle compared to an
automobile. In 2013, there were 5,000 reported stolen bicycles stolen in Ireland,
most of which were stolen in Dublin. However, with only 1 in 4 bike thefts reported, it
is reasonable to put this number at 20,000 (Timoney 2015). This was seen as an
interesting survey with quite a high level of response (more than 1500). In a similar
vein, the trend of under-reported bike theft is seen in the UK. With reported annual
21

bike thefts remaining relatively static at ~100,000 incidences, victim/crime surveys

suggests that the actual number could be as high as 500,000 (Sidebottom 2012).
Outside of Ireland and the UK, this trend is seen in crime/victim survey in Montreal
(Van Lierop 2013), which hints that this is an international trend. The serious
problem of bike theft in most countries has led to the demand for increased bicycle
parking which is safe and secure. This is an additional infrastructural expense (and
environmental one), although admittedly it requires much less space than car
parking, bike parking is often a target of thieves (Pucher and Buehler (2012).
On a final note in this section, it is interesting to observe how levels of cycling related
accidents and bicycle theft have risen with the increased modal share of cycling in
Ireland in recent years.

5. Barriers to cycling, in Dublin and in general

The objective of this research is to examine the barriers that currently exist to cycling
in Dublin. Barriers to cycling are those factors, both real and perceived, that prevent
people from becoming cyclists. In this project, the research looks at barriers to
cycling on the daily commute.

Real barriers are more physical in nature whereas the perceived barriers are
things which are broadly perceived as feasible deterrents, but prevent people from
cycling nonetheless. They can be equally preventative of cycling and for this reason
it can be difficult to disentangle to what extent whether barriers are real or perceived.
For this reason, it will not be attempted to split them up. This thesis concerns itself
with the perceptions of barriers to cycling in Dublin. So what is already known on the
subject in general will be discussed. Many of the barriers are very much intuitive and
interrelated. They include infrastructure, safety, bike theft, weather and distance.

5.1 Infrastructure and distance

22

Infrastructure (or lack thereof) can be a significant barrier. A sign of a city with
excellent levels of bicycle infrastructure is an even gender balance of cyclists and a
more proportionally representative spread of age, and the countries which boast this
gender and age balance include Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the
Netherlands (Buehler and Pucher 2012). The percentage of all trips taken by bicycle
is ~10% for Finland, Germany and Sweden, ~18% for Denmark and ~27% for the
Netherlands (Garrard, Handy and Dill 2012). These figures for cyclings modal share
is an average across the named country (cyclings modal share will be higher in the
cities than in countryside setting Buehler and Pucher 2012)). In certain cities of these
nations, cyclings modal share is way higher. For example, Grningen and Zwolle in
the Netherlands boast 40 and 37% of trips by bicycle respectively, Copenhagen and
Odense in Denmark have 35 and 26% of all trips by bicycle respectively, and in
Germany 35 and 22% for Muenster and Freiburg respectively (Buehler and Pucher
2012)
Infrastructure can be thought of as part of the built environment. There is a wealth of
literature relating to the relationships between certain types of behaviours and the
environment (Ma and Dill (2015), Heinen (2010), Furth (2012), Pucher and Buehler
2008, Pucher et al (2010)). This is also true for the behaviours affecting cyclings
modal share. Ma and Dills 2014 review of the literature of the perceptions of the
environment as it relates to the behaviour of cycling show that the perception of a
bicycle-friendly atmosphere is important, but not enough to enhance cycling rates.
Starting with a rather obvious one, there is a general decrease in the choice of modal
choice with increase distance of trip (Zacharias 2005, Pucher and Buehler 2006).
The research concerning bicycle use and commute distance very much displays
distance as a significant barrier- Indeed, for a great many bicycle research studies,
respondents are selected according to the travel distance. Furthermore, bicycle
commuters seem to dwell nearer to their employment than other types of commuters
(Heinen 2010). What is also known is that there appears to be a upper limit to an
acceptable cycling distance. This upper limit appears to also differ between men
and women (Garrard, Handy and Dill 2012). Perhaps as well as gender differences
there are cultural differences in this maximum acceptable difference (there certainly
is at an individual level).

23

As an interesting comparison, Emond and Handy (2012) find that perceived distance
is greater than actual distance for cyclists. This suggests that distance is both barrier
and perceived barrier to cycling. As previously mentioned in the section
disadvantages of cycling, Tranter (2012) points to studies that show that motorists
often underestimate the times of their journeys. Perhaps this may be subject to
change with the increasing availability of GPS (Global Positioning System) devices.
In terms of infrastructure as an intervention measure to affect cycling levels, Pucher
et al (2010) provides an excellent overview and critical assessment of the literature.
The following information is attributable to that study, unless otherwise stated. In
terms of cycling tracks, 40 studies on the efficacy of cycling lanes at increasing
cyclings modal share were assessed. Similar to some of the economic studies in the
previous section on economic benefits, different methodologies across the studies
are confounding factors in terms of ascertaining concrete answers. Perhaps the
biggest failing of studies on this is the selection of avid cyclists as respondents, for
convenience sake, rather than a representative sample. In all Most of the
aggregate-level studies found a positive and statistically significant relationship
between bike lanes and levels of bicycling, whereas the individual-level studies had
mixed findings.
In terms of the availability of bicycle parking and its effect on cyclings modal share,
there is a general consensus, that it is an important factor, particularly at an
institutional level. Pucher et al (2010) surmises that this may be the reason that there
are few studies into its level of importance. By bicycle parking, it is meant parking
for bicycles which is safe, convenient and secure from theft. Of the studies that do
exist however, it is shown that it can have a very large effect. From what studies
have been done, ease and availability of bicycle parking are very effective at
increasing bicycles modal share (by up to 20% in some studies). Simple unplanned
bicycle parking is not enough though. There is a need to have safe and secure
bicycle parking in order to ward off theft (Pucher and Buehler 2012). Bicycle theft will
be returned to. Bicycle parking links in with the integration of bicycles and public
transport. Bike parking is an important factor of integrating bicycling with public
transportation.

24

There are not very many studies which measure the effect of bicycle parking at
public transportation stops. However, Martens (2007) and Givoni and Rietveld (2007)
both find that this can have a reciprocal and mutually beneficial effect on both cycling
levels and on uptake of public transportation. As mentioned before, these are both
critical to bringing cities towards more sustainable patterns of travel. Both of these
studies took place in the Netherlands, which, as already mentioned has the highest
uptake of cycling in the world. Therefore, it is not known where this factor lies in
terms of its relative importance of increasing cyclings modal share. In Dublin,
bicycles are not allowed on buses, but are allowed on trains during off peak hours.
Of course, there are practical reasons for this. A glut of bicycles on public transport
can be a problem, unless the bike storage is external on the vehicle. Pucher and
Buehler (2012), say that this is why the European approach to bike and ride has
been to provide enough sheltered and safe bicycle parking at stops instead of
accommodating the bicycles on board the vehicles. They also write, Paradoxically, a
bike-and-ride programme can become problematic where it is more successful.
Capacity problems are most likely to occur in cities with well used public
transportation and high levels of cycling.

5.2 Bicycle Access

Perhaps unsurprisingly, bicycle ownership is consistently the number one predictor
for cycling (Pucher et al 2010). It is obvious that access to a bicycle is bridge which
must be crossed for an individual who wishes to cycle. In Dublin, there is the dublin
bike scheme for bicycle sharing, and it is growing with the number of stations
expanding. It is being spread to other cities like Cork, Limerick and Galway
(bikeshare.ie 2015). Bike sharing in Dublin still has a way to go. Murphy and Usher
(2015), state that the scheme is predominantly used by higher income individuals.
Perhaps the spreading of stations to more disadvantaged areas is a solution to this.
Recall that the chosen definition of sustainability for this project includes social
dimensions. A positive aspect of Murphy and Usher (2015) results was that the
Dublin bike scheme indirectly was successful at increasing the awareness of drivers
towards cyclists. This is a positive, seeing how Lynch and Foley (2011) find that
there can be a pervasive attitude among drivers in Dublin to label cyclists as a
25

nuisance. This is an important outcome, related to safety, as it will soon be

discussed how safety is a large perceived barrier to harnessing the latent potential
for increased levels of cycling. What makes the recent success of bike sharing
around the globe so interesting is that historically it has been a failure. Shaheen et al
(2012) provides an historical context, from which this author believes a lesson can
be gleaned from. Bike sharing first started in Amsterdam around 1965, in the so
called white bike plan. An anarchist group interested in youth and environmental
issues called the Provos left bicycles which had been painted white around
Amsterdam for all to use. Most of them eventually ended up stolen or in canals. 2
other cities who tried this system, La Rochelle, France, and Cambridge, England
also failed. The next generation were coin-deposit based systems. Cities such as
Copenhagen and Arhus, Denmark, and Helsinki, Finland rolled them out in the
1990s to early 2000s. A coin deposit generally guaranteed their return, but no time
limit meant that bikes could be gone for inordinate periods of time. While it was an
improvement upon the 1st generation, there were still problems. The 3rd generation,
whereby there is a fee, a time limit, and total automation in their rental is the best so
far. With its success, in 2012 there were 136 bike share programmes worldwide
(Shaheen et al 2012). It has likely grown much since then (there have been 3 more
schemes in Ireland since then for example). This slow but steady progress is
reminiscent of how many German, Dutch and Danish cities increased cyclings
modal share between 20-43% from 1975 to 1995. Berlin alone quadrupled this from
1970 to 2001 (Shaheen, et al 2012).
The other scheme relating to increased accessibility to bicycles in Ireland in the bike
to work scheme. Under this scheme, eligible employees are able to purchase a
bicycle and related equipment for a value of to 1000 euros. However, the employer
pays for it out of what would have otherwise been the employees wages. There will
be much less tax on these purchases (biketowork.ie 2015). There are social barriers
to this scheme, as it requires a person to be in employment. At the same time, these
people in employment will commute every day, and the aim is to make most of their
commute by bicycle.

5.3 Safety
26

Safety and perceptions of safety are large barriers to cycling. The perceived lack of
safety inherent in cycling is reflected in Ireland over the sharp decline in numbers of
pupils cycling to school since 1986. According to the 2011 census, just over 6,000
primary students usually cycled to school compared to nearly 24,000 in 1986. For
secondary students there has been an even starker decline from well over 50,000 in
1986 to just over 6000 in 2011. For walking, there has been a decline over the same
time span from over 250,000 to 118,000 for primary students and 105,000 to 74,000
for secondary students (Irish Census 2011). The census report also comments The
decline in the number of (secondary school) girls using a bicycle has been
particularly stark, falling from over 19,000 in 1986 to only 529 in 2011.
While some of this change may be explained by increased car ownership with
increased ownership (more on this in a later paragraph), McDonald (2012) sheds
some more light on the reasons. Infrastructural deficits evident in Dublins (and
Ireland in general) gender and age imbalance could be a source of parental concern.
There is of course the possibility that this in tandem with more double income
families mean that children with more likely be dropped to school. Getting more
children to cycle will require easing parents concerns by increasing infrastructure
quality and quantity. The decrease of children who actively commuted from the 1986
Irish census to the 2011 census has already been mentioned. An entertainable
hypothesis is that some of this data can be explained by an average increase in
distance to school. But it is unlikely to explain all the change. With a 28% decrease
in schoolchildren walking from 1996 to 2011 and a 87% decrease from 1986 to 2011
in schoolchildren cycling (CSO 2011), it seems unlikely that children living in these
areas who are now being driven to school are now living on average 87% further
from school. It may however explain some of the cultural shift in travel modalities,
along with the increase in double income families. An increase in distance from
school, however, is seen in houses that have been built in the Greater Dublin Area
(GDA) after 2001 (Rock 2015). This hints at new increased distances from school,
however Rock (2015) concludes that, further research is needed... the answer may
lie in lack of walking facilities, car-oriented urban design and issues with childcare
arrangements. None of these factors are necessarily mutually exclusive.
More clues might be ascertained from a 2012 study Emond and Handy, who studied
reason for travelling (or not) to high school by bicycle in Davis, California. Again,
27

females were less likely to cycle. But car accessibility was the biggest factor in
determining whether a student drove or commuted actively. Emond and Handys
study in California shows a similar finding to that of CSO (2011) in that there has
been a large decline in active commuters over the last 2 decades. In 1969 in Davis,
87% of school commutes less than 1 mile were done by foot or on a bicycle. By
1989, this had dropped to 55%. The finding of parental concern playing a role in less
children actively commuting is replicated in Lee et al (2013) studying in Austin,
Texas, and also by Buchanan, Ridgewell and Sipe (2009) in Brisbane, Australia.
Perhaps this widespread increase in parental concern is related to the increase in
prevalence of automobiles and a car-centric urban environment which Rock (2015)
alludes to.
Furthermore, there are equity considerations in terms of urban environments which
are not conducive to children cycling. According to McDonald (2012), any
consideration of children and cycling must recognize that there is uneven access to
bicycles, safe cycling environments, and parental availability. Parental availability is
particularly valid given what has been mentioned about increase in double income
families and the fact that 1 in 4 families with children from the 2011 census is a lone
parent family (One Family Ireland 2011).
In terms of small children having less cycling skill in general, school programmes
whereby children learn cycling skills have been a success. In Odense, Denmark,
pupils in school learn proper and safe cycling skills as a compulsory part of the
school curriculum. Handy, Heinen and Krisek (2012), elaborate on this by pointing
out that in Odense there have been over 300 safe routes to schools projects have
been performed since 1979. Parents can avail of cycling trailers for children of a
certain age, which even affords the possibility of a school run. Odense even has a
mascot for cycling to school, a chicken named Cycle Anton, who visits schools.
There exists too, a programme to help immigrant women who are not use to cycling
become more competent and confident cyclists. Other cities where this program has
worked include Cambridge, UK, Mnster and Freiburg in Germany, Grningen, the
Netherlands, and also the cities of Malm and Linkping in Sweden. It is important to
note that without cycling education, cycling is more likely to be perceived as an
unsafe mode of transport. Indeed, most school children in Germany, the Netherlands
and Denmark take part in cycling education and tests. Comparatively speaking
28

school pupils in other countries with much cycling related , such as the USA,
Canada, Australia and much of Europe do not (Buehler and Pucher 2012).
What Odense has in common with so many other cycling friendly cities is that while it
has poured so much effort into increasing cyclings modal share, it has equally
introduced a few of what Handy, Heinen and Krisek (2012) call autodeterrants. The
three techniques for this that appear to pervade in cities of high cycling rates are (i)
car free/limited zones (particularly in city centres) (ii) limited city centre car parking
and (iii) reduced speed limits (generally to 30km h -1). This echoes what has already
been said in previous studies about specific interventions having positive outcomes
on cyclings modal share (Pucher et al 2010). In the words of Jacobsen and Rutter
(2012), The potential for injury is related to the kinetic energy involved.... Injury data
support this observation. At speeds below 20mph (32kph) cyclist and pedestrians
are rarely killed in a collision with vehicles... This physiological tolerance for injury is
central to Swedens Vision Zero road safety approach that identifies the importance
of protecting pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles exceeding 30kph
(19mph). Recall that kinetic energy of an object equals the mass of the object times
its velocity squared; therefore the speed of a car here is particularly important in
regards to the severity of accidents.
It is widely known that women are, in general, less likely to display risky behaviour
than men. It is interesting to compare to separate data sets compiled by Buehler and
Pucher (2012)1, one of many large cities and the percentage of cyclists who are
females, and the other of the same cities, except the five year annual average of
cyclist fatalities per 10,000 cyclists is shown. In stark contrast, Sydney has the
lowest proportion of female cyclists (17%), but the highest rate (out of the studies
cities) of cyclist fatalities, 8.3 on average per year. Amsterdam and Copenhagen
have the highest proportion of female cyclists (56 and 61% respectively), and the
lowest average fatality rate per 10,000 cyclists over the same period, 0.4 and 0.3
respectively. There appears to be an (albeit rough) inverse relationship between the
value of these 2 qualities in the cities studied. Of course, other factors make up real
safety (for example, infrastructure). On an interesting side note, the uptake of
helmets in the latter of these 2 cities is very low (Jacobsen and Rutter 2012),
suggesting that perhaps they are more so a manifestation of a perceived safety
measure. Helmets will be addressed more in a subsequent paragraph.
29

Data from the study by Geddes (2009), finds a high drop off rate in Dublin in females
from the ages brackets of 5-12, to 13-18 year olds. It went from 25.3% to 5.5%. In
contrast, women in countries with high cycling rates move from age bracket to age
bracket without having an appreciable drop off rate in cycling (Garrard, Handy and
Dill 2012). The Geddes (2009) study also found through survey that men in Dublin
are more tolerant of traffic. Hsu and Sophores (2014), studying in the USA, find that
it is mothers instead of fathers who more so have safety concerns with their children
cycling to school. So what is known of barriers, or perceived barriers to cycling in
Dublin? Lawson et al (2013) performed a study on perception of safety while cycling
in Dublin city. Similarly to this present study, it uses a survey to find opinions. From
the analysis of 1954 respondents, it was found that even cyclists who consider
themselves competent view cycling in Dublin city as unsafe, when compared to all
other modes of travel. Similarly to Lynch and Foley (2011), it was found that
motorists have a negative attitude towards cyclists in Dublin. This may be related to
another finding of Lawson et al (2013) which is that, Cycling is not envisaged as a
major mode of travel either by cyclists or by planners or other users of the
transportation network. As a result, enforcement and infrastructure design for the
comfort and non-compliance of cyclists are not considered in multi-modal urban
transportation networks.
Garrard, Handy and Dill (2012), continue their discursion on other possible factors
and studies concerning the lower proportion of female utility cyclists. While admitting
that direct impact of these factors is slim, they do hint towards indirect evidence
meriting further exploration. Many self reported studies show that women perceive
cycling in a less positive way. On an individual level, this could be to do with any or
all of a myriad of factors such as roles which women tend to play more often in
households leave them with ...tighter time budgets, more complex travel patterns
and more complex travel patterns and make more serve passenger trips than men.
Women, as mentioned before, also have a higher perception of the perceived risks
of cycling. Perhaps cycling is a hindrance to a workplace where workers feel the
need to be presentable is a perceived barrier to cycling, as the survey in this thesis
will question.
Referring back to the Jacobsen and Rutter (2012) discussion of the literature on
cycling helmets and safety, their opening argument is that helmets do not create
30

safety. The only thing, they argue, that can truly create cycling safety is the creation
of an environment which is relatively more free from the dangers of motorised traffic
and poorly designed roads, and that the wearing of helmets only served to give a
false perception that cycling is itself a dangerous thing. This perception, they
elaborate, may serve to decrease the rate of cycling and hence take away from the
population level health benefits, discussed in the previous section on social benefits.
Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the literature on the topic. Early meta-analysis
studies find appreciably lower rates of head injuries for those wearing cycling
helmets, whereas late studies do not show any appreciable difference. Perhaps this
is due to different methodology in the meta-analyses. One interesting study used a
sample of a population legally forced to wear a helmet cycling and found no
decrease in head or any other type of injuries. It may be that people who choose to
wear helmets are simply more cautious as a character trait. It is also worth noting
that helmet does not come near to protecting all injuries. Therefore, the safety of the
environment is arguably the biggest factor in terms of pedestrian and cyclist
perceived and actual safety. There are few studies in Ireland on rates of helmet
wearing while cycling.

5.4 Darkness and Weather

McCann (2015) finds that in the area studied, IT Sligo, that daylight hours can be a
barrier to adopting cycling a means of commute. This relates to infrastructure as
barrier. Sligo town, having a population of ~20,000 (CSO 20121) may have a lot of
commuters from the surrounding hinterlands as it is a town and not a city. McCann
also finds that the patterns of commute vary seasonally, perhaps unsurprisingly as
adverse weather may come into play. Another interesting find in this paper is that
sometimes, a lack of awareness of new and improved active commuting routes plays
a role in lower rates of uptake than expected. It is probable however that the
importance of this factor becomes less over time. In terms of weather as a barrier,
there is yet again a link with infrastructure. High cycling cities in Europe such as
Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Freiburg boast the same levels of cycling throughout
the year, despite all having levels of rainfall very similar to Dublin (Caulfield 2014).
While Pucher et al (2011), takes the case study of Melbournes agreeable climate as
31

a large factor in its relatively high modal share of cycling, but notes that other factors
certainly play a part, such as cycling advocacy groups.
Oulu, north Finland, has 8 months of winter every year. The city, with a population of
191,000 still boasts a year round high cycling rate. 50% of 13 to 17 year olds cycle
year round. 27% of the population cycle several times a week year round. Well built
and easily maintained infrastructure allows them to overcome the levels of snow
(Winter Cycling Blog 2014).

5.5 Governmental follow through

This previous point on the perception of cyclings place in Dublin ...infrastructure
design for the comfort and non-compliance of cyclists are not considered in multimodal urban transportation networks. brings this discussion to one final, possible
real cycling barrier which could be worthwhile exploring in further work. It is that of
follow through of governmental plans is not completed. As an example, ch.19, p.51
of Irelands National Transport Authoritys (NTA) National Cycle Policy Framework
(NCPF) says that a monitoring framework, to assess the state of progress towards
national goals be established. Since Irelands current NCPF runs from 2009-2020,
the author went to find this monitoring framework and any accompanying progress
reports. Upon emailing the department of transport, tourism and sport, it was found
that, While significant progress has been made under a number of objectives
contained in the National Cycle Policy Framework (NCPF) it has not been possible,
due to conflicting commitments and lack of resources, for the Department to develop
the monitoring framework outlined at 19.1 of the policy document. While no
structured approach has been in place for monitoring progress the NCPF has been
integrated into the Development Plans of the majority of local authorities so ensuring
that the objectives and policies to support and promote cycling are taken account of
in current and future planning. Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (2015).
This seems to be very much working against the fulfilment of the NCPF, which itself
admits, ... it is acknowledged that facilities constructed and maintained to date has
been, in many case, inadequate (NTA 2010). Quantity of cycling infrastructure,
therefore, is not the only factor here, but also quality. This suggests it would also be

32

worthwhile to have an inspection of the quality of existing cycling infrastructure, as

well as going ahead with plans to increase infrastructure quantity.
In conclusion, it has been ascertained that there are barriers to cycling, both real and
perceived, repeated across many cities (although only cities in developed cities have
been discussed) and the barriers are very much related and intertwined. These
barriers include bicycle access, cycling safety (including theft), infrastructure, gender
and also possibly a lack of follow through of governmental plans.

6. Methodology
The way in which data was gathered for this study was by self-reported online
survey. The software used was survey monkey. The methodology underwent a full
review by the UCD ethics committee. The survey questions can be seen in the
appendix. A pilot test of the survey was performed by 5 people, (all of whom had
nothing to do with the research) in order to make sure that the questions and layout
were clear and unambiguous. The purpose of the survey was of course to ascertain
views and perceptions of the barriers to cycling in Dublin.
More precisely, the aim of the survey was, as per the title of this thesis, to find the
barriers to cycling among cyclists and non-cyclists alike in Dublin city. The survey
was set up in such a way to filter cyclists (defined as those who cycle to work at least
once a week), and non-cyclists (those who cycle to work less than once a week) in to
different sections of the survey. Some questions were similar in these sections,
some were not. Question asked were pertaining to what does the respondent
perceive as a barrier, such as those discussed on the previous section (safety,
weather, distance, and a myriad of other barriers). In order to complete the survey,
respondents had to answer all of the questions (for the sake of data completeness).
The only non-mandatory question was the question concerning gender.
The way in which the information was gathered was first by approaching Human
Resource managers within some companies in the Dublin Central Business District
(CBD). Permission was sought to distribute the survey, which was anonymous,
voluntary and could be opted out at any stage throughout. This was all made clear in
the accompanying email and explanatory cover letter which came with the link to the
33

online survey. If participants answered that they were younger than 18 years of age
to the first question, the survey was automatically exited from. This method of data
collection is known as snowball sampling. It has inherent problems which will be
discussed later on.
The initial plan was perhaps a bit too simplistic and worked in only some places. The
reason for this was that large organisations like the companies chosen often have
particular rules about what emails can be distributed within these companies.
Thankfully, since these Dublin companies in the CBD were chosen on the basis of
the authors contacts within them, the survey could be spread to some willing
individuals. The companies which had the survey distributed were the Aviva
Stadium, Independent College (staff only), Linked In, Google, KPMG, PWC, Yelp!,
Headhunt International, Ernst and Young, Accenture, and Sidetrade. The survey was
not distributed among cycling advocacy groups as this may have skewed the
response towards avid utilitarian cyclists.

7. Results
A total of 127 participants responded to this exploratory study. 71 (~56%) said that
they do not cycle to commute to work. 53 (~44%) said that cycle to work at least
once a week. 3 did not answer this question. While the ratio Male:Female was quite
good, around 52:48, the age spread was poor, which can be seen in figure 3 below.
Results are summarised in table 2 at the end of this section. Figure 3 shows that the
age spread of the survey respondents was not representative of the population

34

Fig. 3: bar chart of age profile of correspondents.

In addition to this age skew, there may well be a socio-economic bias. This is due to
the respondents all being employees of large companies named in the last
paragraph of the previous section. Nonetheless there are some indications of trends
warranting further exploration.
In terms of concerns of safety, nearly half (24/52) among those who cycled asked if
they view safety as a barrier to cycling answered in the affirmative. A higher
proportion of cyclists found lack of a secure place to keep a bicycle a barrier to
further cycling (32/52, or ~62%). 36/52 (~69%), view a lack of proper cycling
infrastructure as a factor in the way of increasing cyclings modal share in Dublin.
As for those who did not cycle, 71 in total, 20 walked. Several comments were also
made in the survey indicating that some of the office workers from Dublins CBD
consider their living proximity to the workplace too close to cycle. Almost all of the
walkers lived in area codes D1 to D8, which are in general in closer proximimty to
the CBD (see figure 3). Most walkers, (13/20, or 65%), live less than 2km from their
place of work. 24 out of the remaining 51 commuters (those who neither cycle nor
walk) drive. Interestingly, 19/24 drivers were found to have easy access to free
parking. Figure 4, below, is a map showing the layout of postal districts in Dublin, as
well as a rough indication of the location of Dublins CBD, which is represented as a
35

white oval. Some reference points are given, such as the UCD campus which is
shown as a white square.

Fig. 4: Map of the postal codes of Dublin, with the Dublins CBD and UCDs campus
roughly shown, with Howth and Dn Laoghaire also given as reference points. To
give an idea of scale the northernmost point to the southern tip of the map would be
about 10km (estimated using google maps).
57 of the correspondents live in D1-D6. This area had a high proportion of cyclists,
which was a positive outcome. 30/57 (~53%) living in D1-D6 said they cycled at least
once a week to work. Out of the remaining 27, 12 walked, which means in total 42/57
(~74%) commute actively. In comparison to those who live in the rest of Dublin and
the surrounding area,
Comparatively speaking, a much lower proportion of those not living in D1-D6 do not
cycle, only 23/71 respondents (~53% versus ~23%). This suggests that distance is a
barrier to cycling in Dublin. There were deemed to be too few respondents for
comparing responses of those who live an intermediate distance from the CBD.
Indeed, about a third of non-cyclists (24/71, or ~34%) answered that distance is a
barrier to cycling. Other seemingly significant answers for non-cyclists was 27/71

36

(nearly (40%) perceive safety as a barrier to them cycling and 28/71 see weather as
a reason to never cycle.
Males appear to cycle at a rate of 2.5 compared to that of women. Of the 53
respondents who were cyclists, 38 were male and 15 were female. This is despite a
good balance of gender in the sample. While there were not enough respondents
who cycled to really compare behaviour among gender, there appears to be
indication of the unsurprising result that females are more precautious. About 25% of
the female respondents were cyclists, whereas nearly 60% of males were. Despite
these figures being much different to the actual cycling rate in Dublin, where the
modal share of bicyclists as of 2011 was 5% (CSO 20121). This stark difference in
finding may be accounted for by the flaws of snowball sampling and the samples
age skew. Perhaps the higher perceived risk of cycling in the city in females is also
reflected in the rate of helmet wearing. Of the 38 male cyclists, 16 always wore a
helmet, 15 never wore a helmet, and a further 7 said they sometimes wear a
helmet. The number of female cyclist responses was low, but out of 14, 10 said they
always wear a helmet and 4 say they do not.
Another find which is worthwhile noting is that 34/52 (~65%) cyclists cycled 5 or 5+
days per week. 16/52 (~31%) cyclists cycled 1-3 days per week to commute. This
hints that there may be latent potential for cycling even among cyclists. Some, but
not all, of this data
In terms of weather, the likelihood of a regular cyclist commuting to work in a
different way can be dependent on the severity of the weather, for most types. The
exception is frost causing icy road conditions. Table 1, directly below, summarises
the weather data for cyclists. It should be noted that respondents were made aware
that answering light, means that they would allow the more severe versions of that
given weather type to prevent them cycling for commuting. In brackets, the gender
balance for each answer is included, with F denoting and M denoting male.
Type Severity

Light

Medium

Heavy

None

Total

Rain

2 (1F/1M)

10

17

22

51

(4F/6M)

(6F/11M)

(3F/19M)

(14F/37M)

13

18

13

50

Sleet

6 (2F/4M)

37

Wind

Frost

3 (1F/2M)

9 (5F/4M)

(5F/8M)

(5F/13M)

(2F/11M)

(14F/36M)

5 (3F/2M)

22

21

51

(6F/16M)

(4F/17M)

(14F/37M)

16

17

51

(8M/8F)

(1F/16M)

(14F/37M)

9 (9M)

51

9 (1F/8M)

Frost with icy

15

12

15

roads

(5F/10M

(4F/8M)

(6F/9M)

(14F/37M)

Table 1: weather as a perceived barrier of cyclists to cycling, in terms of its severity,

and the gender split of the sample.
The question was phrased as follows: Which of the following weather types, if any,
would prevent you from cycling? (Note: if you picked the 'light' option, it assumed you
would also allow medium and heavy versions of said weather to prevent you from
cycling). Likewise, the logic follows that if the medium option for a given weather
type was chosen, then that respondent would also have allowed the heavy version
of this weather to prevent them from cycling. So for example, the number of
respondents who would allow heavy rain (first row) to prevent them commuting by
bicycle is 29 (2+10+17=29). This could equally be represented on a bar chart, with
lines in 2 colours, one representing men and the other women. This was not done
however, as there was considered to be too few respondents. Instead, the data was
presented in tabular form.
One observation to be made from table 1 is the column none is consistently chosen
by males more so than females across all weather types, even when the higher rate
of. Also, as can be seen in the rows rain, sleet and wind, the more severe the
weather type, the more cyclist are prevented from choosing cycling as their commute
mode. This is consistent with male risk taking behaviour.
The proportion of cyclists and non-cyclists who had showering facilities at work was
not very different. Of 71 non-cyclists, 48 (~68%) had showering facilities at work and
23 (~32%) didnt. Of 52 cyclists, 36 (~69%) had showering facilities at work, and 16
didnt. This is about 67% did and 33% didnt for non-cyclists and 70% did and 30%
didnt for cyclists. Indeed, not too many non-cyclists cited Absence of showers, or
facilities for freshening up at work as a barrier to cycling (9/71 did). While this may
have some effect, it seems to be overshadowed by factors such as safety concerns,
38

weather and of course, distance. Also, lack of street lighting was not found to be a
significant barrier to cycling, with 5/71 non-cyclist citing it as a barrier they saw to
cycling. This is not surprising given Dublins level of urbanisation.
The survey failed to find any sort of meaningful result for the barrier to cycling of
requiring the car for a school run. This is due to the poor age distribution seen in
figure 3. Table 2 summarises the findings of the survey. It compares cyclists and
non-cyclists where possible (weather is excluded as it is covered in table 1). Male
and female split is shown for some findings, but not all. Some data are not included
for brevitys sake, but are still mentioned in previous paragraphs.
Table 2: Summaries of results (excluding weather)
Summaries of results
Comparisons both gender, cyclists and non-cyclists
Cyclists

Female Male

Total

Non-

Female

Male

Total

Dist

44/71

27/71

71

(km)

(62%)

(~38%)

<2

7/44

6/27

13/71

(~16%)

(~22%)

(~18%)

12/44

6/27

18

(~27%)

(~22)

(~25%)

4/44

4/27

8/71

(~9%)

(~15%)

(~11%)

16/44

9/27

25/71 (

(~36%)

(~33%)

~35%)

cyclists

Respondents

15/53

38/5

(~28%)

53

(~72
%)
Distance

<2

commuted

3/15
(20%)

2
(~5
%)

(km)

5/53
(~9%
)

2-5

5-8

Not
Sure

2-5

8/15

23

31/53

(~53%)

(~61

(~58

%)

%)

3/15

12

15/53

(20%)

(~32

(~28

%)

%)

1/53

Not

5/44

2/27

7/71

(~3

(~2%

sure

(~11%)

(~7%)

(~10%)

%)

5-8

>8

39

Other comparisons
Cyclists

Yes

No

Showering facilities

36

Non-cyclists

Yes

No

16

48

23

38

16

56

15

Easy access to car

29 (19 free,

23

39 (27 free.

32

parking

10 paid)

at work
Secure spot to store
bike at work
12 paid)

Opinions of barriers (pick those that apply)

Cyclists

Non-cyclists

Safety

24/52 (~46%)

27/71 (~38%)

Distance

17/52 (~33%)

24/71 (~33%)

Darkness

13/52 (25%)

4/71 (~5%)

Lack of infrastructure

36/52 (~69%)

12/71 (~17%)

Data not comparable between cyclists and non-cyclists

Cyclists who wear helmets

Female

Male

Total

Yes

10/14

16/26

26/52 (50%)

(~71%)

(~62%)

4/14

15/26

(~29%)

(~58%)

7/26

No

Sometimes

19/52 (~37%)

7/52 (~13%)

(~27%)

Days a week cycled for commute (*4

Female

Male

Total

5/14 (~36%)

10/38

15/52

days not included)

1-3

40

9/14 (~64%)

(~26%)

(~29%)

25/38

34/52

(~66%)

(~65%)

How non-cyclists got to work

Walking

20/71 (~28%)

Car

24/71 (~28%)

Bus

10/71 (~15%)

Train

8/71 (~11%)

Tram

3/71 (~4%)

Total

71

8. Discussion
There was an inherent difficulty in selecting areas to isolate while analysing data due
to (i) the irregular shapes of Dublins postal districts (see figure 4) and (ii) the fact
that the CBD is not a clearly defined area. For the purposes of this study, it was the
areas in which the companies chosen are located. Therefore, a common sense and
best judgement approach was adopted. Further problems with the study were the
small sample size, and the spread of demographic. The demographic was highly
skewed in terms of age (see figure 3), and likely socio-demographically. The
constraints were in time, budget and the methodology itself (the method of
collection). It ought to be taken into consideration that the respondents are purely
office workers in big businesses based in Dublins CBD. Given more time, it would
be interesting to perform a larger study and analysis on the perceived barriers to
cycling for cyclists and non-cyclists alike in Dublin. This exploratory study still points
towards answers.
In comparison to previous studies, the perceived barriers to cycling are not very
unique in Dublins case. The higher perceived risk for females, reflected in the
possibly higher rate of helmet wearing in Dublins female cycling population as
compared to male (see table 2), and likely also the way in which they appear more
41

likely than males to allow adverse weather to prevent them from commuting by
bicycle (see table 1). This is consistent with Geddes (2009), a Dublin study which
found that females associate more safety concerns with cycling in the city. It is
known that the safer cycling becomes in a city, the more the gender gap will be
closed (Pucher 20121).
Cyclists and non-cyclists see weather as barrier. This is despite having similar levels
of rain of cities with high levels of cycling, like Copenhagen, Amsterdam and
Freiburg (Caulfield 2014). Perhaps this is due to the perceptions of cyclists in the
levels of adequacy of cycling infrastructure in Dublin. Nearly 70% of cyclists perceive
inadequate cycling infrastructure as a barrier (in terms of quality and quantity),
whereas less than 20% of non-cyclists do. It is important to not this stark contrast
between the 2 groups. The groups that cycle for commute at least once by bicycle
are the ones who find the level of infrastructure inadequate, i.e. the ones who
actually use it. It is known from the literature review that cycling infrastructure is
serves to increase cyclings modal share (Pucher and buehler (2008), Pucher et al
(2010)), and also that upon review of the literature, cycling infrastructure increases
the positive perception of ones urban environment (Ma and Dill 2015). This may
work in Dublin to increase the modal share of cycling to new individuals, and
increase cycling levels among those who already cycle (it has been shown that there
is latent potential for increased cycling among those who already cycle). Similarly to
the perceived dearth of infrastructure hindering cyclings modal share, it is interesting
to note the proportion of private car drivers who have free parking, which incentivizes
people to drive. Further to the incentivization to drive, Dublin city councillor Patrick
Costello at a recent debate on plans for new cycle routes in North Dublins inner city
stated, ...research shows that the overall benefits of motoring are lower than the
costs of motoring including climate change, pollution, building roads, collisions
and childhood asthma...These cost society significantly more than anything motorists
contribute we are in effect subsidising motorists for every kilometre they drive.
As mentioned, it is unclear from the results whether or not showering facilities at
work are an incentive to cycle. The numbers of those who have access to showers
appears to be the same across both groups. Perhaps this due to a fault in the
methodology, as large business such as the ones studies (many of which are large

42

multinationals) will have facilities like this for employees. It is possible that a
subsequent, larger and more inclusive study would shed light on the matter.
The finding of distance as a barrier to cycling isnt surprising. Given that many of the
respondents came from areas far away from the CBD. Many came from postal codes
outside of the M50 motorway, many others commuted from county Kildare, with one
respondent even commuting from county Laois. It is important to note that cycling is
not feasible for all. Those with several school runs to do in the morning (as
discussed in the section on barriers), or the disabled may not (currently) have the
option of cycling. As Dublin is a primate city in Ireland, and the companies were
focussed around the city centre, the share of respondents taking public transport
does not reflect normality in either Dublin or Ireland (CSO 2013).
This topic was chosen as a means of attempting to elucidate the reasons one might
not commute by bicycle to Dublins city centre. Cycling, with its social, economic and
environmental advantages (see figure 2) discussed in the literature review is a small,
but simple and holistic way of moving towards more sustainable cities (IPCC (2014 1),
Creutzig (2012)). The reasons to do so are not just for local and national benefit, but
as John Sweeney, researcher of Climate Change in Ireland has put it, ...we have to
accept our share of responsibility. On average, each Irish person is responsible for
emissions of 12.6 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually; about 40 per cent more
than countries such as the UK or Germany, and 40 per cent more than the average
for the EU as a whole. Indeed, Ireland emits more greenhouse gases than the
poorest 400 million people in the world combined. For a country with a proud record
of positive assistance to the developing world, this is our unwelcome contribution to
current and future food insecurity. Sweeney (2015). Our patterns of transport in
Dublin are already known to be unsustainable (Lynch and Foley (2011), Caulfield
and Ahern (2013)). As outlined in this study, cycling can aid alleviating this problem.
Perceived barriers can be equally real as they inhibit the levels of cycling uptake,
and therefore should be considered.
The primary conclusions which this thesis draws are:

Increasing the modal share of utilitarian bicycling has huge net positive
effects, which outweigh any negatives. The benefits can broadly be classified
into social, economic and environmental. While cycling is not a panacea to all
43

problems in sustainability, it is a cost effective and holistic tool to add to a city

to make it greener.

Cyclists in Dublin have safety concerns about their modal commuting choice,
particularly females. This introduces equity concerns which must be
addressed as well as problems relating to safety which must be addressed if
Ireland is to reach its ambitious goal of 10% of all trips taken by bicycle by
2020 outlined in the NCPF.

The barriers to cycling in Dublin for cyclists are safety and lack of adequate
cycling infrastructure. It is also know that theft of bicycles is a concern
(Timoney 2015)

Unsurprisingly, distance is a large perceived barrier for non-cyclist to cycling.

Cycling does not suit everyone, and a sustainable transport plan ought to
reflect that.

9. References
Aertens, J., et al, (2010), Commuting by bike in Belgium, the costs of minor
accidents, Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol. 42, 6, p. 2149-57
Andersen, L.B., et al (2011), Cycling to school and cardiovascular risk factors:
a longitudinal study, Journal of Activity and Physical Health, Vol. 8, 8, p.
1025-33
Andersen, L.B., et al, (2000), All cause mortality associated with physical
activity during leisure time, work, sports and cycling to work, Vol. 160, 11, p.
1621-8
Bikeshare.ie
(2015),
Cities,
available
at:
https://www.bikeshare.ie/galway.html (accessed on 2/9/15),
biketowork.ie
(2015),
Employee
FAQs,
available
at:
https://www.biketowork.ie/faq/employee-faq/#B04 (accessed on 2/9/15)
Blue, E., (2013), Bikeonomics: how cycling can save the economy, 1st Ed.,
Portland Oregon, Microcosm Publishing.
Boogard, H., et al (2009), Exposure to ultrafine and fine particles and noise
during cycling and driving in 11 Dutch cities, Atmospheric Environment, Vol.
Buchanan, N., Ridgewell, Sipe, N., (2009), School Travel Modes: Factors
Influencing Parental Choice in Four Brisbane Schools, Urban Policy and
Research, Vol. 27, 1, p. 43-57
Buehler, R., and Pucher, J., (2012), International Overview, In: Pucher, J.,
Buehler, R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Buehler, R., and Pucher, J., (2012)1, Big City Cycling in Europe, North
America and Australia, In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R., City Cycling, Cambridge
MA, MIT Press.
Caulfield, B., (2014), Recycling a city- examining growth of cycling in Dublin.
Proc.
Of
the
ITRN
2013,
avail.
online:
44

http://www.itrn.ie/uploads/Caulfield%20ITRN%202013.pdf
(accessed
on
15/6/15)
Caulfield, B., Ahern, A., (2014), The Green Fields of Ireland: The Legacy of
Dublin's Housing Boom and the Impact on Commuting, Case Studies on
Transport Policy, Vol. 2, 1, p.20 27
Caulfield, B., et al (2012), Determining bicycle infrastructure preferences - A
case study of Dublin, Transportation Research, Vol. 17, p. 413-7
Cavill, N., (2008), Economic Analyses of transport infrastructure and policies
relating to cycling and walking: a systematic review, Transport Policy, Vol. 15,
5, p. 291-304
Circular Ecology (2015), Sustainability and sustainable development - What
is sustainability and what is sustainable development?, available at:
http://www.circularecology.com/sustainability-and-sustainabledevelopment.html#.VbJcCflVikp (accessed on 24/7/15)
Commins, N., Nolan, A., (2010), The Determinants of Mode of Transport to
Work in the Greater Dublin Area, ESRI working paper 268, available online
at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23786618_The_Determinants_of_Mo
de_of_Transport_to_Work_in_the_Greater_Dublin_Area (accessed on 7/7/15)
Creutzig, F., (2012), Decarbonizing urban transport in European Cities, Env.
Res. Lett., Vol. 7, p. 9-18
CSO (2011), Census 2011, Results: Profile 10, Door to Door Commuting in
Ireland,
available
at:
http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressr
eleasecensus2011profile10doortodoor/ (accessed on 6/8/15), updated on
13/12/13.
CSO (2012), Number of Casualties by Road User Type, Age Group, Sex,
Statistical
Indicator
and
Year,
available
online
at:
http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp
(accessed on 31/8/15)
CSO
(20121),
Profile
1:
Town
and
County,
available
at:
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011vol1andprofil
e1/Profile1_Town_and_Country_Entire_doc.pdf (accessed on 13/9/15)
CSO (2013), National travel study 2012 and 2013: Percentage of people who
travelled and did not travel on the reference day, available online at:
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/pnts/nationaltravelsurvey2012and2013/keyfindings/#.VcNtPflViko (accessed on
6/8/15)
Darnton, P., (2009) The economic cycle: making an economic case for
cycling, Logistics & Transport Focus, Vol. 11, 8, p.22
De Hartog, J., et al (2010), Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the
risks?, Environ Health Perspectives, Vol. 118, 8, p. 1109-16
Deenihan, et al (2013)., Measuring the success of the Great Western
Greenway in Ireland, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 7, p73 82.
Deenihan, G., Caulfield, B., (2014), Estimating the health economic benefits
of cycling, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 1, 2, p.1419
Deenihan, G., Caulfield, B., (2015), Do tourists value different levels of
cycling infrastructure?, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, p. 92-101

45

Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (2015), email to Tom Seaver,

July 13th.
Dublin City Council (2015), 2. Agreement on the order in which Motions in
relation to the proposed Draft Dublin City development Plan 2016-22 will be
taken,
available
at:
http://www.dublincity.publici.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/189978 (accessed on 28/9/15)
Dudas, R.A., Crocetti, M., (2008), Association of bicycling and childhood
overweight status, Ambulatory Pediatrics, Vol. 8, 2, 392-5
ECF
(2011),
ECF
press
releases,
available
at:
http://www.ecf.com/press_release/5056/, updated on 11/12/11, (accessed on
1/8/15)
ECF (20111), Cycling more often 2 cool down the planet: quantifying CO 2
savings
of
cycling,
available
at:
http://www.ecf.com/wpcontent/uploads/ECF_BROCHURE_EN_planche.pdf (accessed on 4/8/12)
Emond, C.R., Handy, S.L., (2012), Factors associated with bicycling to high
school: insights from Davis, CA, J. Transport Geography, Vol. 20, 1, p.71-9
ESU services (2010), Life Cycle Assessment of Two Wheel Vehicles,
available at: http://www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/leuenberger2010-TwoWheelVehicles.pdf (accessed on 3/5/15)
European Commission (2014), In-depth study of European Energy Security,
available
at:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20140528_energy_sec
urity_study_0.pdf (accessed on 29/7/91)
European Commission (2015), Climate Action: Effort Sharing Decision,
European Cycling Federation (2015), Decarbonising urban transport hop
onto
two
wheels!
Accessed
on
31/7/15,
available
at:
http://www.ecf.com/news/decarbonising-urban-transport-hop-onto-twowheels/ (updated 25/6/15)
Filte Ireland (2011), Great Western Greenway- Economic Impact Analysis,
available
online
at:
http://www.waterwaysireland.org/SiteAssets/documents/24-10-11%20%2011.08%20Great%20Western%20Greenway%20%20Economic%20Impact%20Case%20Study%20%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf (accessed on 23/8/15)
Fishman, E., et al (2015), Dutch Cycling: Quantifying the Health and Related
Economic benefits, American Journal of Public health, Vol. 105, 8,
Fitzgerald Rodrigues, J., (2015), Long battle results in protected bicycle lanes
for Polk Street, San Fransisco Examiner, 4/3/15
Furth, P.G., (2012), Bicycling infrastructure for mass cycling: a transatlantic
comparison, In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT
Press.
Garrard, J., et al (2012), Health Benefits of Cycling, In: Pucher, J., Buehler,
R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Garrard, J., Handy, S., Dill, J., (2012), Women and Cycling, In: Pucher, J.,
Buehler, R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Geddes, M., (2009), Gender and cycling use in Dublin: lessons for promoting
cycling, unpublished masters thesis, Dublin Institute of Technology.
Giles, L.V., Koehle, M.S., (2014) The Health Effects of Exercising in Air
Pollution Sports Med., Vol. 44, p. 22349
46

Giles, Luisa V., Koehle, Michael S., (2014), The Health Effects of Exercising
in Air Pollution, Sports Med., Vol. 44, p.22349
Givoni, M., Rietveld, P., (2007), The access journey to the railway station and
its role to Passengers satisfaction with rail travel, Transport Policy, Vol. 14, 5,
p357-65
Heinen, E., (2010), Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of the Literature,
Transport Reviews, Vol. 30, 1, p. 59-96
Hoevenaar-Blom, M.P., et al (2013), Cycling and sports, but not walking, are
associated with 10-year cardiovascular disease incidence: the MORGEN
Study, European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation Vol.
18, 1, p. 41-7.
Hk, M., Tang, X., (2013), Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic
climate changeA review, Energy Policy, Vol. 52, p. 797-809
Hsu, H., Saphores, J., (2014), Impacts of parental gender and attitudes on
children's school travel mode and parental chauffeuring behavior: Results for
California based on the 2009 National Household Travel Survey,
Transportation, 05/2014, Vol. 41, 3, p. 543-65
IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy
Makers,
available
at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf (accessed on 24/7/15)
IPCC (20141), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, available
online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
Irish
census
(2011),
Commuting
in
Ireland,
available
at:
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile10/Pro
file,10,Full,Document.pdf (accessed on 3/9/16)
Irish Department of Transport (2009), National Cycling Policy Framework
2009-20,
available
online
at:
http://www.smartertravel.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/0902%2002%20English
NS1274%20Dept.%20of%20Transport_National_Cycle_Policy_v4%5B1%5D.
pdf (accessed on 12/7/15)
Irish Times (2015), Ireland set to be most obese country in Europe, WHO
says, available online at: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ireland-setto-be-most-obese-country-in-europe-who-says-1.2201731, updated on 6/5/15,
accessed on 18/8/15)
Jacobsen, P.L., Rutter, H., (2012), Cycling Safety, In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R.,
City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Lawson, A., et al (2013), Perception of safety of cyclists in Dublin City,
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 50, p. 499-511
Lee, A., (2008), What is the economic contribution of cyclists compared
to car drivers in inner suburban Melbournes shopping strips?
Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Melbourne.
Lee,
C.,
et
al
(2013),
Beyond
Distance:
Childrens
School Travel Mode Choice, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 45, 1, p. 5567
Levine, D., (2002), Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), Best Pract.
Res. Clin. Endocrino.l Metab., Vol. 16, 4, p.679-702
Litmann, T.A., (2009), Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning
Objective, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, available online at:
http://www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf (accessed on 18/8/15)
47

Litmann, T.A., Doherty, E., (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis
Techniques, Estimates and Implications: Second Edition, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, available online at: http://vtpi.org/tca/ (accessed 18/8/15)
Liu, W., et al (2015), Life cycle assessment of lead-acid batteries used in
electric bicycles in China, J. Cleaner Production, p.1-8
Lovejoy, K, Handy, S., (2012), Developments in cycling equipment, In:
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Lynch, J., Foley, A., (2011), Facilitating Cycling to reduce Urban Sprawl,
Proceedings of the ITRN 2011, 31/8-1/9/11, UCC, Cork, Ireland. Published
online: http://www.itrn.ie/uploads/sesE3_ID98.pdf (accessed on 5/8/15)
Ma, L., and Dill, J., (2015), Associations between the objective and perceived
built environment and bicycling for transportation, J. Transport and Health,
Vol. 2, 2, p. 248-55
Martens, K., (2007), Promoting bike and ride: the Dutch experience,
Transportation Research, Vol. 41, 4, p.326-38
McCann, B., (2015), Analysis of a Sustainable Travel Modal Share Study at
the IT Sligo Campus, Irish Transport Research Network, NUI Galway, 2728/8/15, published online
McGoldrick, P., Caulfield, B., (2015), Examining the changes in car
ownership levels in the Greater Dublin Area between 2006 and 2011, Case
Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 3, 2.
McNabola, et al (2009), A PCA of factors effecting personal exposure to air
pollution in urban commuters in Dublin, J. Environ. Sci. Health A. Tox.
Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng., Vol. 44, 12, p.1219-26
Michigan Dept. Of Transportation, Community and Economic Benefits of
Bicycling
in
Michigan,
available
online
at:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_CommAndEconBenefitsOf
BicyclingInMI_465392_7.pdf (accessed on 4/7/15)
Mueller, N., et al (2015), Health impact assessment of active transportation: a
systematic review, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 76, p.10314
Murphy, E., Usher, J., (2015), The Role of Bicycle-sharing in the City:
Analysis of the Irish Experience, International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation. Vol. 9 p.116-25
New Zealand Transport Agency (2013), Reallocation of road space August
2013,
available
at:
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/research/reports/530/docs/RR-530Reallocation-of-road-space.pdf (accessed on 22/8/15)
Nichols, J.F., et al (2003). Low bone mineral density in highly trained male
master cyclists, Osteoporosis International, Vol. 14, 8, p. 644-9
NTA (2010), National Cycle Policy Framwork, available at:
http://www.smartertravel.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/0902%2002%20English
NS1274%20Dept.%20of%20Transport_National_Cycle_Policy_v4%5B1%5D.
pdf (accessed on 7/7/15)
NTA (2015), Dublin City Centre Shopping Report, available online at:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/Dublin_City_Centre_Shopper_Survey_Report_MB_
1.pdf (accessed on 14/8/15)
ODonoghue, R.T., et al (2007), Exposure to hydrocarbons while commuting
or cycling in Dublin, Environ. Int., Vol. 3, 1, p. 1-8
48

Oja P. et al (2011), Health Benefits of cycling: a systematic review, Scand. J.

Med. Sci. Sports, Vol. 21, 4, p. 496-509
One Family Ireland (2011), Facts and Figures, available at:
https://onefamily.ie/policy-campaigns/facts-figures/ (accessed on 9/9/15)
Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (2012),
Consumer Behaviour and travel Mode Choices, available online:
http://kellyjclifton.com/Research/EconImpactsofBicycling/OTRECReportConsBehavTravelChoices_Nov2012.pdf (accessed 26/8/15)
Pealosa, E., (2010), How to turn an urban nightmare into a fairer society,
The
Forum,
BBC
World
Service,
available
at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p006xbmx#play (accessed on 8/9/15)
Popovich, N., Handy. S., (2014), Bicyclists as Consumers Mode Choice and
Spending Behavior in Downtown Davis, California, Journal of the
Transportation research Board, Vol. 2468, p. 47-54
Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (2006), Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a
comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies, Transport Policy, Vol.
13, 3, p. 265-79
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., (2008) Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the
Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, 4, p.495528
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., (2012), Integration of Cycling with Public
Transportation, In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT
Press.
Pucher, J., et al (2010), Infrastructure, programs and policies to increase
bicycling: an international review, Preventative Medicine, Infrastructure,
programs and policies to increase bicycling: an international review, Vol. 50,
p.106-25
Quirke, M.B., et al (2013), Bicycle helmet wearing in a sample of urban
disadvantaged primary school children, Ir Med. J., Vol. 106, 4,:p.102-4
Rock, S., (2015), Dublins housing boom and car reliance: the aftermath,
Irish Transport Research Network, NUI Galway, 27-28/8/15, published
online
RSA (2014), Cyclist injuries: a review of 2012 casualties, available at:
http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_I
njuries_2012.pdf (accessed on 31/815)
RT (2014), Ireland's obesity levels above EU average, available online at:
http://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2014/0529/620368-irelands-obesity-levelsabove-eu-average/, last updated 29/5/14, (accessed on18/8/15)
Rutter. H., et al (2013), Economic impact of reduced mortality due to
increased cycling, Am. J. Prev. Med., Vol. 44, 1, p. 89-92
Scholten, A.C., et al (2015), Incidence and costs of bicycling relating to
traumatic brain injuries in The Netherlands, Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol. 81, p. 5160
Shaheen, S.A., et al, Bikesharing across the globe, In: Pucher, J., Buehler,
R., City Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Short, J., Caulfield, B., (2014), The safety challenge of increased cycling,
Transport Policy, Vol. 33, p. 154-65

49

Sidebottom, A., (2012), University College London, Bicycle (bike) theft,

available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jdibrief/crime/bicycle-theft (accessed on
8/9/15)
Suminksi, R.R., et al, (2014), Bicycle Policy indirectly associated with
overweight/obesity, Amer. J. Prev. Med., Vol. 47, 6, p. 715-21.
Sweeney, J., (2015), John Sweeney: Time to tackle powerful vested interests
on climate change, The Irish Times, 4/8/15, available on at:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/john-sweeney-time-to-tackle-powerfulvested-interests-on-climate-change-1.2305928#.VcCHWHblFQM.twitter
(accessed on 5/8/15).
Timoney, D., (2015), Bike theft- the hidden cost, Irish Transport Research
Network, NUI Galway, 27-28/8/15, published online
Tranter, P., (2012), Effective Speed, In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R., City
Cycling, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
UN (2014), The World Population Situation in 2014, available online at:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Co
ncise%20Report%20on%20the%20World%20Population%20Situation%2020
14/en.pdf (accessed on 24/7/15)
UN (20141), World Urbanisation prospects: 2014 revision, available at:
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf (accessed on
28/7/15)
US Dep. Transportation (2000), Case study no. 15, the Environmental
Benefits
of
Bicycling
and
Walking,
available
at:
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/BikePedBen.pdf (accessed on 28/7/15)
US EPA (2015), Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, accessed on
31/7/15,
available
at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html (updated on
5/7/15)
Van Lierop, D., (2013), Completing the cycle: Assessing bicycle theft and
parking security in Montreal, Quebec, unpublished Masters thesis, McGill
University.
WHO (2015), Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation - Transport
sector,
available
at:
http://www.who.int/hia/examples/trspt_comms/hge_transport_factsheet_lowresdurban_30_11_2011.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 8/8/15)
Winter Cycling Blog (2014), Oulu, Finland: Winter cycling capital of the world,
wintercyclingblog.org,
17/10/14,
available
at:
http://wintercyclingblog.org/2014/10/17/oulu-finland-winter-cycling-capital-ofthe-world/ (accessed on13/9/15)
Winters, M., et al (2007), Utilitarian Bicycling: A Multilevel Analysis of Climate
and Personal Influences, Am. J. Prev. Med., Vol. 32, 1, p. 52-8
Yew, A., et al (2013), Bicycle ownership and its association with physical
activity, sitting and obesity in Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology
(PURE) study, Vancouver cohort, Canadian J. diabetes, Vol. 37, 2, p.242-6.
Zacharias, J. (2005), Non-motorized transportation in four Shanghai districts,
International Planning Studies, Vol. 10, p. 323-40

50

10. Acknowledgements
I would mostly like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Aoife Ahern for all of her help with
this project. Her guidance, good ideas, constructive and knowledgeable feedback
as well as gentle prods in the right direction were hugely important for this thesis.
I would like to thank my course supervisor Patricia Cunningham for her
assistance and always speedy email responses throughout the span of the
project. I would also like to thank my parents for putting up with my seemingly
endless littering of the dining room table with folders, a laptop, pens, books and
loose scraps of paper.

11. Appendix
Below are the questions asked of the survey respondents, as well as the logic
applied to the survey monkey survey. All questions were mandatory to complete the
survey except for question 2.
Q1. What is your age?
Options:

Under 18 (clicking this option would exit the respondent from the survey)

18-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65 and above

Q2. Are you male or female?

Options:
51

Male

Female

Q3. Which of the following, (if any) Dublin postal districts do you live in?
Options:

Scroll down Menu of D1-D22 and Co. Dublin

Other (please specify, box included for this)

Q4. Do you Cycle at least once a week as a way of Commuting to work?

Options:

Yes (respondents directed to finish questions 5-12)

No (respondents directed to finish questions 13-18)

Q5. If answered yes to Q.5, how many days a week do you naormally cycle to work?
Options:

5+

Q6. What distance do you live from your commute destination?

Options:

<2km

2-5km

5-8km

I dont know

Q7. Do you wear a helmet when you cycle?

Options:

52

Yes

No

Sometimes

Q8. Do you have easy access to car parking space at your place of work?
Options

Yes (Free)

Yes (Paid)

No

Q9. Do you have showering facilities, or somewhere to 'freshen up' if need be, after a cycle at
your commute destination?
Options:

Yes

No

Q10. Do you have a secure place to keep you bicycle at your commute destination/work place?
(Such as a bike shed/cage etc)
Options:

Yes

No

Q11. Which of the following weather types, if any, would prevent you from cycling? (Note: if you
picked the 'light' option, it assumed you would also allow medium and heavy versions of said
weather to prevent you from cycling). Tick all that apply. For each weather type, cyclists had to
respond light, medium, heavy or none.
Options:

Rain

Sleet

Wind

Frost (or severe cold)

Frost, with possible icy road conditions

53

Q12. Which of the following do you view as a barrier to cycling? (please tick all that apply)
Options:

Distance

Safety

Darkness/inadequate lighting

Lack of proper cycling infrastructure

Absence of secure place to leave a bicycle

Q13. (where non-cyclists continue from Q.4) How do you normally commute to work?
Options:

I walk

Car

Bus

Train

Tram

Q14. What distance do you live from your commute destination

Options:

<2km

2-5km

5-8km

>8km

I dont know

Q15. Do you have showering facilities at you commute destination?

Options:

Yes

No

Q16. Is there a secure place to keep a bike at you work?

Options:
54

Yes

No

Q17. Do you have easy access to car parking space at you work?
Options:

Yes (free)

Yes (paid)

No

Q18. Why do you not cycle to work? (Please tick all that apply)
Options:

Distance

Weather

Safety

Darkness/inadequate lighting

Lack of adequate and/or safe cycling infrastructure

Absence of showers or facilities to freshen up at work

It would take too long

I have young children who I need to drop to school

Other (please specify)

55